Joined: Oct. 2006
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 09 2007,15:02)|
|Now, I came here at the invitation of Alan Fox for the express purpose of debating the works of these scientists [Schindewolf and Berg] and their challenges to the theory of evolution. To date, no one has shown that their claims do not have scientific merit. In fact there seems to be a reluctance here to talk about them. Now what conclusion am I supposed to draw from that?|
You keep saying this.
Firstly, their 'theory' is completely unnecessary.
Secondly, there is no suggested, never mind plausible, mechanism whereby the organism knows what conditions it will need to adapt to in the future and what form the organism 'should' take.
Thirdly, there is no suggested means of storing the information free from corruption for millions of years.
Fourthly, there is no suggested means whereby this information could be invoked at a specific time to produce the 'correct' organism in the 'correct' era.
Fifthly, because no means of anticipating the requirement, storing the information or scheduling the changes has been proposed, there is no knowing what evidence to examine or to seek. All the evidence so far seems to consist of 'By heck, it looks like it was planned!"
In short, there is absolutely no reason to take these notions seriously.
I have mentioned these problems before but you don't seem to realize, each one of these points, in itself, is enough to show that the ideas are not sufficiently developed to warrant much serious attention.
All sweeping statements are wrong.